Attribution—A Hidden Risk Factor in Construction

As humans, we are inquisitive. We try to explain things so that we have a
rationale (explanation) for their occurrence or existence. This allows us to
understand and function better in our environment. This fundamental approach
influences our culture, society, and relationships, as well as daily
interactions, in subtle and sometimes profound ways.

This curiosity of asking "why" and the approach to trying to
explain and figure out things, trying to find a reason or cause for them, has
been characterized by scientists and philosophers as basic human activity and
interaction. This phenomenon was first studied and discussed by Fritz Heider in
the late 1950s to explain human acts and dispositions with The Psychology
of Interpersonal Relations, which expanded on his creations of balance
theory and attribution theory.

Although there are some cultural and personal differences in the making of
attributions, there seems to be a universality to the underlying process of
trying to understand and give meaning to the world around us (see Figure 1).
People can make relatively logical assessments of cause and responsibility in
life as well as work situations. Because we perceive the world through our
senses, and we make a judgment based on our past experience, we inevitably
create a personal reality. This personal reality colors our understanding of
the world around us. As a result of this "personal understanding,"
different people inevitably interpret the world differently and, in turn, reach
different conclusions about information, situations, or people.

Figure 1—The Attribution Process

In psychology, attribution refers to the cognitive process that people use
to find reason for either their own behavior or that of others. Researchers
found that people tend to make distinctions among behaviors that are caused by
personal disposition as opposed to environmental or situational conditions.
Attribution is made in four areas, our success or failure, and other
people's success and failure.

Attribution and Social Behavior

This process also establishes our reaction or eventual response to
information or events. The important distinction is that different people may
see the event or hear the information and make a completely different
attribution to it. Say that you have a group of people walking the construction
site and they all observe a worker engaged in performing a task. Observer A
might say to the others, "Did you see the way the worker looked when he
lifted the material. It looked like it was way too heavy for him."
Observer B might say, "No, no, it looked like he was completely
disinterested and bored with the work." Observer C might offer, "I
thought he was clowning for his coworker." While Observer D might muse,
"It sure looked like he was unhappy to see us looking at him." And
Observer E might override everyone by stating that the worker just hurt himself
in the lifting of the material. Every one of these observers is going to have a
different emotional reaction as a result of the attribution they made.

Observer A might think the worker will get injured due to the heavy loads he
is expected to work with. This may lead him to think the project supervision
did not make a proper task demand assessment and as a result assigned the wrong
worker to do that particular task. This may lead to the conclusion that the
project's planning process has some structural weaknesses or that the
supervisor's capabilities to manage the crews effectively is deficient.

Observer B might think that this is a classic example of complacency at
work, which more than likely will result in an injury, and that supervisors
ought to try to make the work interesting to counter this eventuality. This
attribution may lead to the suggestion that the task design or demand on this
project ought to be reassessed, as well as a reevaluation of task assignment
practices by the project's supervision.

Observer C might feel that the project supervision is lacking and the
workers are allowed to engage in unsafe behaviors. The suggested intervention
may be to focus on the worker who is engaging in unsafe behavior and try to
come up with an intervention that eliminates such infractions or that
supervisors are not managing the project in a competent and safe manner.

Observer D might think that the worker was doing something he should not
have been doing and, as a result, became uncomfortable that he was being
observed. This may lead to a determination that the worker is willingly or
unwillingly engaged in some form of unacceptable activity that may cause harm
to the project or other workers. This worker might be thought of as being
incompetent, dishonest, or possibly subversive.

Observer E might state that she just witnessed an accident where the worker
just got hurt in the act of lifting the material. The immediate action may be
to stop the work and have the worker examined by someone to ascertain the type
and extent of the injury. This may also lead to a reexamination of the risks
involved with that particular task.

This scenario offers different attribution by five different people
observing a worker performing work on site. Though they all saw the same
behavior, every one of them made a different attribution. And, more
importantly, the different attribution led to different conclusions about the
worker, the work, and/or the quality of the supervision or the capability
and/or competence of the supervisor assigned to the project (see Figure
2).

Figure 2—Experience-Based Attribution Bias

People also tend to interpret their behavior differently than that of
others. People are more likely to explain other people's failures in terms
of dispositional factors (i.e., caused by a given person's personality)
while ignoring the surrounding environmental or situational factors.
Conversely, they tend to explain other people's successes as caused by
environmental or situational factors.

When it comes to making personal attributions, people are more likely to
explain their own successes in terms of dispositional factors (i.e., caused by
their personality or innate ability) while ignoring the surrounding
environmental or situational factors. Conversely, they tend to explain their
failures as caused by environmental or situational factors, which they may
think of as beyond their control.

This tendency of people to interpret their behavior differently than that of
others is known as attribution bias. People routinely and constantly make
attributions to explain or give meaning to behavior. But due to attribution
bias, this assignment does not always accurately reflect reality (see Figure
3). Since people invariably are prone to making mistakes, this leads to a
biased or sometime false representation of reality. In many cases, this may
lead to emotions, understandings, responses, or behaviors that are
inappropriate for the given situation, thereby leading to unnecessary problems
or difficulties in relationships both personal and
professional.

Figure 3—Attribution Bias

Attribution theory also provides explanations for why different people can
interpret the same event or information in different ways. This may lead one
person to make an assumption about the other person as to not having any
"common sense." This tendency to make such an assessment is somewhat
common in safety-related situations. I have heard many safety practitioners say
this about one of the workers who got injured on one of their company's
construction sites. This attribution tends to become a significant barrier to
understanding that the cause of the negative event was not the stupidity of the
worker but possibly caused by some other salient factors.

One of the things that contributes to disagreements and possible hostility
on worksites can emanate from what is known as "hostile attribution
bias," which is an interpretive bias. This is where a worker may observe a
couple of other workers talking while looking in his general direction. That
worker may assume the conversation is about him/her and makes an attribution of
hostile intent, even though the other workers' behavior was potentially
benign. Research has indicated that there is an association between hostile
attribution bias and potential aggression such that people who are more likely
to interpret someone else's behavior as hostile are also more likely to
engage in aggressive behavior. Knowing this may provide possible ways to defuse
potential confrontations or possible reactive aggressive behavior.

A hostile attribution bias does not need to result in aggression or
aggressive action in all cases. In safety situations, hostile attribution bias
may create a situation that may result in resistance to complying with
suggested corrective behavioral actions or work process procedure changes. This
understanding may open subtle means for the safety practitioner to more
effectively deal with workers on site so as to achieve a more cooperative work
environment, safer work practices, and a more productive worksite.

An informed and knowledgeable supervisor may function more effectively when
dealing with workers, crews, peers, or others by understanding their tendencies
for attribution and the resulting response on their part. This may lead to
better managing group interactions and relationships. Such a supervisor will
also be able to steer conversations or interaction to neutral ground as a
result, avoiding potential barriers to cooperation and more effective teamwork.
This ability may prove very effective in coaching and counselling workers to
become better at working with others. It may also help workers to have more
positive emotions leading to exhibiting a more constructive attitude at
work.

Not all attribution is about the cause of the behavior. Sometimes, it leads
to the assignment of responsibility for the behavior or the outcome. This is
considered responsibility attribution and has been studied by different
researchers. For instance, the worker engaged in a task that was difficult and
was not given the appropriate tools or enough time will be looked on
sympathetically as opposed to one who failed to use proper technique when
performing the assigned work. As a result, attribution of responsibility may
have significant consequences ascribed to one party or another.

There are other attribution biases as well. For example, researchers have
found that sometimes people have a tendency to make self-serving attributions.
More often than not, this bias manifests itself in conflict situations. One
person may view their behavior as more appropriate, or relevant, than the
actions of the other person. We may view ourselves as more competent than the
other person or not responsible for the negative result or improper outcome.
This then leads to the conclusion that the other person was the cause of the
event. In conflicts, this generally leads to unpleasant escalations.

Attributions play a role in the evaluations or assessment of accidents as
well. Researchers have found that there is a tendency to attribute more
responsibility for a severe accicent rather than for a mild one to an
accident's perpetrator. Researchers have also found that when the
investigator is somewhat "similar" to the person involved in the
accident, they attribute less responsibility to the perpetrator when the
accident severity increased. The opposite was found to be true when the
perceiver and the perpetrator were somewhat "dissimilar."

Research has also found that attributions of causation is subject to
numerous biases or errors. Some proposed sources of attributional
"error" is the perception of causation to satisfy the perceiver's
personal motivation. This plays a role in the attribution of responsibility or
events with negative outcomes. This could involve natural disasters, crises,
crime, or accidents. Several researchers have found attributional biases by
persons attempting to make sense of or understand seemingly random catastrophic
events. Rather than admit that the accident was a random event that happened by
chance, victims of such tragedies may attribute some blame to themselves. This
enables them to perceive that they had some level of control that they failed
to exercise. This in turn gives them the ability to think that they will be
able to successfully avoid such a situation in the future. This use of
self-blame attribution serves as a coping mechanism in the present situation
for workers involved in accidents.

Another aspect of attribution that may affect social behavior results from
an attribution that assumes the person could have or could not have controlled
the situation. If the outcome is attributed to controllable or intentional
causes, the response of the person making the attribution will generally be
negative in nature (anger, blame, reprimand, etc.). If the outcome is
attributed to uncontrollable or unintentional causes, the resulting conclusion
on the part of the person making the attribution will be sympathetic or
positive in nature, leading to assistance or support.

Attributions may also be made for communication behavior, such as a facial
expression, and body language, observed or perceived, from the speaker's
tone of voice. Communication behaviors can be seen as occurring for different
reasons as well. Such attribution made by people engaged in a conversation will
affect the overall outcome if they are not sensitive to this eventuality and
effectively managing the process to achieve a positive result or outcome.

Conclusion

Researchers have identified many different types of attribution biases, all
of which impact the way people react and/or respond to one another. Every
comment a person makes, every action in which a person engages, and every piece
of information a person processes can be subject to attributional analysis or
bias by themselves as well as by others. This analysis has the potential for
significant implications in the relationship between the two. It will
potentially affect the way they respond or view each other. The attributional
processes are vital as well as consequential to interpersonal communication and
relationships. From a larger perspective, this may have an indirect impact on
internal processes, external relationships, and ultimately the outcome of
organizations for whom these people work.

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Like This Article?

IRMI Update

Dive into thought-provoking industry commentary every other week,
including links to free articles from industry experts. Discover practical
risk management tips, insight on important case law and be the first to
receive important news regarding IRMI products and events.